Psychology of Suicide ’Bombers’

with all the obfuscations and justifications here about suicide bombers, i find it interesting that one would want to compare Jesus as a martyr to that of a suicide bomber. not only interesting, but highly imaginative.

and it is one thing to die to save one from their sins (for those of us who actually believe that). who exactly are the suicide bombers of trains and planes saving? well? yes, martyrdom and self-sacrifice are from time immemorial, but i think one could think of even more inventive and imaginative justifications than comparing christ`s ``martyrdom`` to that of a suicide bomber.

as to whether jesus WANTED to die, jesus knew he was going to die and he accepted it as the will of his father, i.e, for us christians, God. i refuse to believe that these suicide bombers are acting according to the will of God, no matter what their leaders and defenders say.

Re: # 65

ana,

If I have hurt your sensibility then I am sorry. You also say that:

``i refuse to believe that these suicide bombers are acting according to the will of God``

While you refuse to believe so, my point is that the suicide bombers may strongly believe that he is acting according to the will of God. I have no comments on these beliefs. Neither do I have the capability to justify the various deeds. I do have some half baked ideas though, and I have put them in #28.

Re #62

swarrier,

Nice to see you after a long time. You ask:

``Why is he conditioned to think there is no other alternative?``

It seems to me that you are assuming that the guy has no other choice but this. I disagree. The guy actually chooses to die and he chooses from a host of other feasible alternatives. These other alternatives may be the same as that from which you make everyday choices. We do know of rich and educated kids blowing themselves up. The guy`s choice is imbedded in a romantic notion of an alternate world - call it utopia if you may. He sees himself as making the supreme sacrifice to usher in this utopia. I know that we may not understand such behavior given our grounding in materialist thought. But non-material thought processes imbedded in hinduism, early christianity, sufism etc. always had an important part reserved for `sacrifice` (recall Abraham`s sacrifice for example). Last, I do emphasize that I believe the suicide bomber is convinced that he is doing GOOD. It is another matter that we may not agree.

dullabhatti #55 ``So all those polls and news arjun was posting is afterall true.``

It would seem like it, from the behavior of this group of blind arab worshippers on chowk. But as they say, the fool ultimately does the same thing the wise man does - but only much later and after much cost. So that is the good news and the bad news.

further to #67 also, this group does not represent all Pakistanis. There is no shortage of Pakistanis who are concerned about our own problems. So, while some of what arjun has been writing is true, it is by no means the whole truth. And, like I say below, in time they will realize their stupidity - like the Khilafat movement types did three generations ago. Never forget that.

i don`t think this article does a good job or analyzing the complex subject that it is attempting to analyse. it seems more superficial than analytical, for the following reasons:

- the author has not looked at suicide bombing as a phenomenon, over history
- the author is mixing suicide bombing with terrorism, without treating them separately
- the author is equating suicide bombing with religion or religion related phenomenon

a better analysis of suicide bombing with prove the above to be false. prior to the iraq war, by far the greatest number of suicide bombers in the world were in sri lanka. according to bbc, the number of suicide bombing carried out by the tamil tigers were many times the suicide bombings of all other groups combined. they didn`t get much press because of the country and area they were operating in. had they been carried out in new york, my guess is they would have gotten far more publicity than in colombo. most, if not all of them are hindu. hence religion, in the context the author is describing it could not have been their motivation.............

the largest number of suicide bombers of the past century were actually buddhist. the japanese kamikaze pilots far outnumber the suicide squad anyone has ever been able to put up. according to the following website http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1740.html there were three times as many applicants as there were planes!

as for the nature and background of these suicide bombers, it states:

``Generally, Kamikaze pilots were university students motivated by obligation, and loyalty to family and country. A typical pilot was a science student in his twenties. He prepared for his fiery destiny by writing farewell letters and poems to loved ones, receiving a ``thousand-stitch sash*,`` and by holding a ceremony — a drink of water that gave him a ``spiritual lifting`` before wedging himself between 550-pound bombs.``

what would be the psychology of these individauls? certainly different than the author`s analysis.

there seems to be one factor that is common in all suicide bombers, be they jihadists, tamil tigers or kamikazes, and that obviously isn`t religion or lack of education etc. it seems to be that they are weaker party. the far weaker party. they seem to have calculated that they can only fight a war or battle if they risk themselves............this is where the analysis should start......

the second part of the analysis should look at terrorism, independent of suicide`ism.` it should be debated whether it is better to carry out terrorism without killing on`e self or is it worse. is a person who plants a bomb in a neighborhood and escapes better than a person who walks in wearing the bomb. is a person who drops the bomb from the sky from an f-16 killing innocents better or worse than a person who flies the plane into the neighborhood?

We often think of education as a solution to the problem. Many people do not think so. The West dealt with the problem of Jehad earlier also. Faisal Devji in his book ``Landscapes of the Jihad`` tells us that W.W.Hunter wrote a book in 1871 called ``The Indian Musulmans: Are they bound to rebel against the queen``. It was a prescribed reading for the imperial services. Amongst others it dealt with Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi`s organization in Afghanistan. The writer suggested western education as an antidote to Barrelvi`s jehad.

I think that people like Sayyid Ahmed Khan and Jinnah were indeed the products of such an education. But they were more capable of explaining India (and the Musulman) to the Brits than they were able to explain western thoughts to the unwashed masses of India. Even after 100 years, I do not think western education has done much to change the mindset of people in the sub-continent. I do not know much about the Arab world.

Like we all are carried over by the preponderance of Muslim suicide bombers, the author also focussed only on this angle. It`s normal, though Dr.Sohail did justice to this subject.

The LTTEs does this. The would-be SBr would have th honour of having his/her last meal with Prabhakaran, who himself sent his son abroad for studies (http://www.sinhale.com/other_tamil_parents_cry_for_thei.htm).

Same is the case that OBL or Masood Azhar or Hefeez Syed. They dont send their sons/nephews for SB missions. These guys are hypocrites.

The LTTE guys are drawn into this by the altruistic goal and were inspired by the charisma of their leader, whereas the Muslim guys do this for a cause in Palestine, say against the might of Israel as a desparate action.

Why on earth there are SBs in Pakistan (this year there are 2 in Pakistan so far)? Can somebody throw light on this?

#67 by tahmed32 on August 22, 2006 6:05pm PT

”dullabhatti #55 ``So all those polls and news arjun was posting is afterall true.``
It would seem like it, from the behavior of this group of blind arab worshippers on chowk.”

TAhmed,

This is an unfortunate comment and I am embarrassed for you. First, this Bhutti guy maybe a nice person but I have yet to see an intelligent comment from him in the last three years and any one with a little sense would have just ignored this idiotic comment but you chose to endorse the idiocy to prove what?

Read this article again it is asking people to discuss suicide bombing from a specific angle and it is absolutely important that people discuss the issue with all the honesty. Contrary to your simplistic comments of this being an Arab issue, suicide bombing is not an Arab issue any more. We have suicide bombers in Pakistan, India, and Indonesia and perhaps some other places besides Europe and the US. This is an issue that is in our society and it is important that we discuss it from all perspectives and listen to people’s concerns and views from all walks of our society.

I hope that you will contribute something to the debate instead of attacking people that are expressing their views. Pakistani society and people of Pakistani origins have to come forward and discuss this phenomenon that ails our society and if a person of your knowledge and intelligence chooses to listen to idiots like Bhatti or khasi_m and their ilk than I am afraid, I can only say that you are running away from the reality and acting like an ostrich.

#68 by tahmed32

TAhmed,

“like the Khilafat movement types did three generations ago. Never forget that.”

You may dispute the objectives of the khilafat movement but it set the stage for a robust independence movement in India. In politics everything has some impact and that impact can bring contrary results. Since this is off topic, we will discuss it some other time but comments like this don’t add anything to you argument.

#63 by swarrier

“Kami-kaze pilots were not any different from suicide bombers.”

Thanks for posting the right term I just could not remember kamikaze at that time:)

You see when we discuss these issue we tend to draw from history and find incidents or similar actions fromthe past. That is a good technique but frankly anecdotal evidence can go as far. We live in a different era. There was time in the late sixties and early seventies in Vietnam when Buddhists were immolating to protest injustice. Around the same time we had other groups that were fighting in the jungles of South America. The non state actors throughout the history have found different ways to fight things they considered unjust. we have examples from our own society when some naïve or simple freedom fighters were taking law into their own hands and attacking civilians. In today’s terminology they would qualify as terrorists and perhaps suicide bombers too.

Do you know what Alipure Bomb case was or do you have any idea what was Hardinge Bomb case was all about. What about Ras Bihari Bose or Master Amir Chand, Bhai Balmukand, Master Awadh Behari, Basant Kumar Biswas, Ganeshilal Khasta, Vishnu Ganesh Pingley, Charan Das, Balraj, Lachhmi Narain Sharma and Lala Hanwant Sahey.

They were all terrorists. But would you believe that?
Were they representing the defeatist attitude?

So we need to be flexible when we study this whole saga. Could it be that the next generation of Arabs or Muslims would consider bombers heroes as they do now or would just reject them as crazies? Is it a new wave of fighting battles with the superior enemy like the waves I cited above?

Human mind develops new strategies all the time. Some are a result of extremely well educated minds who think through the whole issue and the others are born out of immediate environments. History teaches us that most of the guerilla movements grew out of the local environment. No matter how much the state authorities hated them; they were romanticized in their own particular deprived or the oppressed societies.

Some in the end just turned out to be as corrupt as the colonial rulers they were fighting against but a majority of them gave up lives for causes that were dear to them.

Would stereotyping allow us to get to the bottom of this issue?

Re:HP#74

[...Could it be that the next generation of Arabs or Muslims would consider bombers heroes as they do now or would just reject them as crazies? Is it a new wave of fighting battles with the superior enemy like the waves I cited above?......]

Leaving morality aside, at a sheer practical level, suicide bombings are completely ineffective and counterproductive to their cause. The Japanese Kamikaze pilots accomplished nothing, except getting Japan nuked since the USA decided it was too costly to continue regular combat. The Sri Lankan Tamil suicide bombers have delivered nothing either. Whatever support they had in India has disappeared a long time back and the rest of the world has washed its hands off from the Tamil cause. As Lankan Tamils languish in the dirt, their Tamil cousins in India are now the toast of the world with their IT prowess.

The Palestinian suicide bombers have again accomplished nothing for the Palestinian cause. Israel just built a wall to keep them out and de facto annexed Palestinian territory in West Bank, reducing Palestinians to a permanent status of prisoners in small bantulands there. Suicide bombers in Iraq are now killing fellow muslims - Shias - in record numbers every day. They may have stalled the US plan for democracy and even get the US out of Iraq. However, Iraq as a country is finished as it will just partition into permanently fighting sectrian sectors.

The mose useless suicide bombers are the Al-Qaeda and OBL`s gang. They have given muslims such a bad name that people all over the world are treating muslims with revulsion as if they are lepers. The good name of Islam accumulated over centuries has been ruined. The vast majority of peaceful muslims are paying through their nose for this situation by facing daily hardship, indignities and economic loss.

Suicide bombers with their morbid ideology and innocent casualties turn off people from their cause and people lose sympathy for whatever was the root cause. The way to fight oppresion or an ideological war is to come up with a positive counter agenda and maintaining a moral higher ground, as shown by Gandhi. By the way, the Indians you listed were terrorists and delivered nothing to the freedom struggle as compared to Gandhi, who not only got India liberated but also set the stage for South Africa`s liberation and Martin Luther King`s civil rights struggle in USA.

Re:Salim_Chauhan #45
[...With the Hezboola courage and Paki nuke, momins can finally kick some ass....]

Salim bhai, what has happened to you? When did you become a flaming jehadi? You were once the Quaid-e-Azam on chowk :-) fighting for Indo-Pak reunification.

Now we have to rename you as Salim Jinnah, for the sudden political U-turn :-).

HP brought out a valid comparison betwen a state-paid soldier and a volunteer suicider. In my opinion, the difference is only in the extent of willingness to be killed. The soldier is aware of the possibility to be killed himself in trying to kill the enemy but knows the chances of that happening are perhaps 50%, but this risk is acceptable to him which is why he joined the army. The suicider on the other hand is aware of the possibility to be killed himself in trying to kill the enemy but knows the chances of that happening are 100%.

In that manner, the difference between both is only that of degree. Both are soldiers and both are suiciders. Just that one is a 50% soldier/suicider and the other is a 100% soldier/suicider. That degree is further variable as, say, in case of special operations troops behind enemy lines in which case it would be perhaps 75%, or a reconnaissance pilot in which case it may be just 5% or less.

When Bhagat Singh, after the assembly bombing, decided to use the court as a tool to publicize his cause by admitting to the murder of J. P. Saunders and made anti-British statements, what did he think his chances of avoiding a death penalty were? Was he a suicider or not?

What determines the willingness to extent is the commitment to what ever cause the soldier/suicider is fighting for. It doesn`t matter if he is in uniform or civvies, paid or unpaid, man or woman, Muslim or any other religion etc. Thus, the suicider `phenomenon` is neither new nor is it a big deal.

I agree with HP that the author does not understand the phenomenon of suiciders at all....psychological or political....

#62 by swarrier

Good to have you back. It is nice to get a sensible discussion out of someone from across the border, which has lately been a rarity.

You said ``Now how many suicide bombers have attacked military strongholds. How many successful bombings have been there compared to civilians?

There have been numerous suicide bombings against military targets, including the famous tank battle at Chawinda where regular Pak army soldiers metamorphasised into suicide bombers. The most successful was the bombing of the US marine HQ in Beirut in 1983 by Hazballah which forced US to leave Lebanon.

Then there were the Yeman naval vessel attack and the 1996 US Army barracks in the Khobar Towers, Dhahran. As for the Intifada bombings, the attacks on military targets, check-points etc plus off-duty soldiers hangouts far outnumber the attacks on purely civilian targets. Various embassy attacks can also be counted in this category because everyone knows embassies are litlle more than intelligence outposts.

I think we are not aghast at some one trying to kill innocent civilians before commiting suicide.........it has been happening for various reasons ranging from personal frustrations or personal vengence.

The issue is not the act of this suicide bombing but the reasons for it which are now getting absolutely ``de-personalized``. It means that you need not be a victim to perform this suicidal act but ONLY need to identify with the victims anywhere in the world to act as suicide bomber with a `justification`. This extreme act of frustration which was seen more as an aberration from loony individuals is now getting RELIGIOUS legitimacy and is getting approved by the mullahs as the best act of religiousity.
We all get aghast at frustrated school boy and juveniles killing innocent class fellows out of a feeling of angst borne out of personal humiliation.............but no sane society approves of this act as a legitimate method of redressing any personal grievance, nor does the it praise the individual who does that.
The civilized world is aghast not at this act but the fact that we see suicidal activity getting approved by the religious people and the mullahs. Even worse, it is getting support from lunatics who call themselves purest of all the faithfuls amongst the ``educated`` lot of Pakistanis..........lahol............I think we need to reserve Antartica for these suicide mongers and open more mental asylums in that cold land.......

Perhaps after this we can enjoy our evenings in the bar peacefully without worrying about these lunatics in our neighbourhood.........all that would be a worthwhile the efforts........

People compare those who fought for political freedom with those who fight for heavens in the other world..............

this is nonsense...............one has a concrete secular objective regarding sharing of temporal power and sharing of control over natural resources between groups.................................................the other implies establishing un realistic objectives like ``Nizam-e-mustafa` enshrined in theological principles like heaven and other non-temporal and metaphysical objectives..................